I don't see what the problem is. No oversight over spending in Iraq certainly hasn't resulting in the construction of shoddy buildings, the disappearance of firearms, or the scamming of millions of dollars.... right?

Well we could see what would happen if this was not approved. Any guesses which major US corporation would fold first because it could not get credit? My guess would be General Motors. United Air Lines would be another one.

So, it would be better if individual congressmen and congresswomen could go about panhandling, trying to get a better deal for each company in their individual states and mucking up the process as companies crash and burn?

More democracy in a process does not necessarily constitute a positive gain.

This is largely the model that has been followed by the Fed for years, and--in the aggregate--I'd say that it has done a reasonably good job, though it has had its failings, particularly when it comes to the tamping down of market bubbles. If you want a picture of how bad things can get when federally elected politicians start mucking around in financial markets for their own gain, just look at the disastrous policies of the Fed under Burns during the Nixon years. I personally fear this situation in the current crisis far more than I fear whatever Hank Paulson might or might not do.

But that's manifestly not the issue at hand in this particular topic. I agree that the bailout shouldn't go ahead if there's not sufficient strings attached to it to limit, as much as possible, the moral hazard of such a situation. But that doesn't have anything to do with the particular piece of wording in the legislation that is under dispute, as far as I see it. This is especially true since (a) the legislation is not in any way finalized and so denunciations that it is too open ended or that there's not enough oversight are premature and (b) apparently there is some agreement in the works for the government to take some equity share in the companies it buys the mortgages from.

I just think all the huff over this passage is misplaced, and that the consequences of panhandling by a bunch of federally elected officials are both real and greater than other consequences.

You Democrats got us into this so Kwitcherbellyakin! As it stands now the Congress has oversight into FNME and FNMC. Your CEO of FNME was appointed by Clinton ahd he caused this whole mess. (Frank Raines) Oh, and one other thing, McCain never got a dime of PAC money from FNME or FNMC, Chris Dodd, Barrack Obama, Barney Frank and John Kerry made out like bandits. I hope John brings this up in the debate on Friday.

Also--though this somewhat cuts into my former arguments if only because I'd rather Congress not be able to muck around in the decisions--this passage, if I'm reading it correctly, does not say that there may be no review of it, because Congress is not an administrative agency but is instead a legislative agency. It's likely that this passage is inserted in order to give decision making to one agency, and ultimately one person, in order to avoid a bureaucratic mess. Congress still has oversight authority, as it does of all administrative branches.

The court provision is likely unconstitutional, so it wouldn't matter that much. But of course, the real reason it doesn't matter is that, frankly, who's going to challenge it? The administrative branch certainly isn't, nor is the legislative. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for any individual citizen or group of citizens to prove standing in court to be able to challenge it. So it won't ever actually come in front of a court, most likely. So frankly, who cares?

Ah, Chewey, thanks. You're a better reader than I. I have to remember that when it comes to this stuff, one needs nearly be a lawyer to quickly get the language of what's written. What do you think they mean, though, but administrative agency?

John43620 said, "You Democrats got us into this so Kwitcherbellyakin! As it stands now the Congress has oversight into FNME and FNMC. Your CEO of FNME was appointed by Clinton ahd he caused this whole mess. (Frank Raines) Oh, and one other thing, McCain never got a dime of PAC money from FNME or FNMC, Chris Dodd, Barrack Obama, Barney Frank and John Kerry made out like bandits. I hope John brings this up in the debate on Friday."

I couldn't say exactly which agencies, but perhaps the SEC, for one, might come into play without such a passage. There's so much redundancy in the federal government that I just assume that's what this passage is for, but I couldn't tell you specifically right now, without doing further research, which ones might have jurisdiction.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is known as "the investigative arm of Congress" and "the congressional watchdog." GAO supports the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and helps improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people.

NNJfitandbi saidChallenges would come when they go after "vested rights", like the huge compensation packages given to the very people who got us into this mess. Once they try to void a golden parachute, the very money the govt spent to bail out the investment banks will be used to hire high priced lawyers who will challenge the authority of the govt to take what is theirs.

I'm not so sure of this, if only because the legislation being worked on isn't necessarily about taking over companies, but is only about buy bad mortgages. And because shareholders don't get to vote on executive compensation packages, even a government right to equity shares won't necessarily allow them to determine if an executive's severance package is dumped. Unless something dealing with executive compensation makes it into the legislation, I'm still not necessarily seeing it being challenged.

And thanks for the point about the SEC. I am a bit murky on what it does. So there's probably some other executive agency--or, likely, a number of them--that has possible jurisdiction. Again, this is a guess, but I think it's a reasonable one.

You know, this "bailout" wouldn't seem so incredulous to me if the US had universal healthcare...you know, things the REST OF THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD PROVIDES ITS CITIZENS. Funny how there's no money for that, or for free education, or anything social but boy do we have the $$$ for the banks. So let's see...